First, SS is bankrupt because the Bush Admin has raided it for general funding. They're raiding the government employees pension right now.
SS is bankrupt because it is a bad system all together. Clinton raided it for general fund also. But that isnt the root of the problem. Raiding it only shortens the timespan before it tanks. Eventually it has to be changed unless we want to be paying 70% of our income in taxes just to fund it.
In 4 years, Bush has not made one attempt to get Congress to curtail spending. He has not vetoed one single bill that has gone across his desk. Quite the opposite, he has gone to Congress on multiple occasions to get his spending bills passed.
It is tough to say whether or not those bills would have been needed if 9-11 would not have passed. Most of his spending bills were aimed at the defense of the nation. Would you have complained when FDR took military spending through the roof in the early 1940s also?
While I can agree his tax cuts were not a wise fiscal move. The spending on the military was needed to fight a war. His tax cuts were aimed at getting the economy out of a recession. It worked but it cost the national debt dearly. Either way the congress could have also curtailed their spending bills to cut down on the
I did not blame military spending specifically. However, you are foolish (or revisionist?) to blame only the Clinton Admin for our current crisis. In addition to benefitting from a healthy economy, he actually did cut some government spending. For example, spending under Bush has increased from Clinton's 1.7 trillion in 2000 to 2.4 trillion under Bush this year. An increase of 41% in only 4 years! In contrast, spending only increased 30% during 8 years of Clinton. At least Clinton had the excuse of increased revenues.
I didnt once blame the Clinton administration for what the congress did. Although I suppose he does share some of the blame.
Actually the numbers appear to be closer to 22% increase for Clinton 1.57trillion-->1.995 trillion in 8 years and Bush is looking at a 9% increase in 4 years 2.085-->2.272 trillion. If Bush stays on track he will have increased the budget less than Clinton did.
Now the difference is in the revenues. They have dropped through the floor and thus have hurt the bottom line.
Military spending (not counting Iraq) was $450 billion this year. Roughly 100% of the this year's deficit.
The deficit is nearly 600 billion. So not quite and the increase in total military expenditures has gone up about 250 billion. If the Military expenditures were in fact 0 last year and 450 billion this year your theory would hold up. So we have a 350 billion dollar domestic deficit to worry about.
On the largest spending bill of the Bush Admin, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003, strongly supported by GW, Kerry abstained from voting while Edwards voted No.
And yet they are for the aging Americans right? ok
I would suggest first getting the numbers correct and then realizing the spending done under the Clinton era was relying on unrealistic tax revenues to last basically ever. If they were smart and held spending increases at 15% over 8 years that would have put the base at 1.8 trillion and tack on another 8% for Bush.
That puts us right at 1.95 trillion. That is ~ 300 billion from where we are today. That means without a war we are still able to run a surplus. With a war we have half of the deficit we have today.
Ask John we they didnt have enough foresight and economic wisdom to know the unrealistic fortunes of the 1990s would not last forever? They should have planned ahead!
Edited: Trillion instead of Billion